Dismissed

Jose Varghese v. Beena Anand

Kerala HC3 Aug 2020Con.Case(C)/2646/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with earlier directions, the Court observed that a new order had been issued by the respondent. The Court closed the contempt case, holding that it is not the appropriate forum to consider the validity of the new order, directing petitioners to approach the Village Officer instead.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; liberty to seek rehearing if necessary after approaching the Village Officer.

Jose Varghese Vs Beena Anand — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Con.Case(C).No.2646 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 30372/2019(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 JOSE VARGHESE AGED 69 YEARS

¶9

S/O. VARGHESE, MUKKADACKAL HOUSE, CHITHRAPPUZHA, IRRUMPANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-682039.

¶10

2 JAGAN VARGHESE, AGED 65 YEARS

¶11

S/O. VARGHESE, MUKKADACKAL HOUSE, CHITHRAPPUZHA, IRRUMPANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-682039.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR

¶14

RESPONDENT:

¶15

BEENA ANAND (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER ) TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682011.

¶16

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Con.Case(C).No.2646/19 IN W.P(C)No.30372/19

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This contempt of court case has been

¶22

filed alleging that the directions in the judgment of this Court dated 12/11/2019 have not been complied with.

¶23

However, learned Senior Government

¶24

Pleader appearing for the respondent, Shri.M.V.Anandan, submitted that, contrary to the allegations of the petitioners, an order dated 17/07/2020 has already been issued. He says that this order is in full

¶25

compliance with the directions in the judgment; thus praying that this contempt case be closed.

¶26

In response, Shri.T.P.Pradeep,

¶27

learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that even though an order has now been issued, there are certain inadequacies

¶28

therein which may compel his clients to seek

¶29

further orders from this Court.

¶30

Even when I hear Shri.T.P.Pradeep

¶31

¶32

Con.Case(C).No.2646/19 IN W.P(C)No.30372/19

¶33

on the afore lines, the fact remains that this Court may not be able to consider the validity of the new order in a contempt of court case and I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioners must invoke their other remedies, including by approaching the Village Officer in terms of the new order, rather than seek further directions from this Court.

¶34

I, therefore, close this contempt case, however, leaving liberty to the petitioners to seek a rehearing if it is so necessary, even after they approach the Village Officer.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

MC/3.8.20

¶39

Con.Case(C).No.2646/19 IN W.P(C)No.30372/19

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 12.11.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.30372/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶44

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 20.11.2019.

¶45

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶46

NIL

¶47

¶48

(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

Jose Varghese v. Beena Anand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Varghese v. Beena Anand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usha Vs Special Tahsildar (L.R.)

A.a.Anwar Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Davies Vs Sub Registrar

C.M.Mathew, Vs K.Biju IAS

Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samiti Vs Joy Mohan W

Mangalasseri Sobhana, Vs Donbosco